States Consider Removing Biden From Ballot Over Border Invasion 

Consolidated News Photos /
Consolidated News Photos /

As Democrats take their victory lap over Colorado and Maine’s decision to remove former President Donald Trump from primary ballots, several other states seek to remove President Joe Biden.  

Among Republican lawmakers leading the charge to remove Biden are Arizona’s Cory McGarr, Pennsylvania’s Aaron Bernstine, and Georgia’s Charlice Byrd.  

For these lawmakers, the political theater is intended to “showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision.” They argue that the Constitution justifies the sitting President’s ineligibility to hold office based on his alleged bribery scandals and his inaction at the southern border, which they claim qualifies as an “insurrection.” 

As one of the states hardest hit by Biden’s lack of immigration enforcement, Texas finds itself aligned with removing the current President from the ballot. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick pondered, “Seeing what happened in Colorado tonight makes me think … maybe we should take Joe Biden off the ballot in Texas for allowing eight million people to cross the border since he’s been president.” 

Florida Governor and GOP presidential nominee Ron DeSantis is looking into blocking Biden from the ballot in the Sunshine State as well, calling the unchecked illegal immigration an “invasion” under the President’s watch. 

DeSantis insists that removing a candidate from election ballots is unconstitutional but notes that it’s crucial to “fight under the same rules” as the Democrats are using. DeSantis goes on to add that if elected, he will make it a priority to end what he calls “lawfare and weaponization.” 

Republican Jay Ashcroft, Missouri’s Secretary of State, disagreed with the Colorado and Maine ruling, arguing that the decisions were disgraceful and undermined America. He agreed with DeSantis, adding that if the United States Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the rulings, Secretaries of State nationwide will “step in and ensure the new legal standard” applies equally to Trump and Biden.  

Ashcroft takes it one step further, adding that Vice President Kamala Harris could be deemed ineligible to hold office for her role in supporting rioters who were “rebelling against the U.S. government” in 2020. 

All lawmakers advocating for Biden’s potential removal from the ballot are, at this point, highlighting the potentially chaotic political fallout from Colorado and Maine’s decision to block Trump.  

But their point is not without merit. 

Legal experts struggle to define the vague language in the Fourteenth Amendment, Article 3, such as what positions constitute governmental “officers.” The basis of the Democrat’s claim is a post-civil-war era clause intended to keep Confederate military leaders from holding office as the country glued itself back together, and it is not clear what positions are covered in Article 3.  

Further, Democrats repeat the term “insurrection,” hoping it sticks, like a school kid trying to give himself a cool nickname that the other students refuse to use. But no one genuinely believes a shirtless, megaphone-carrying man wearing a Viking helmet and sporting a painted United States flag on his face was seeking to overthrow the government. Only a handful of “insurrectionists” were found to be armed with guns. The rest sought to “overthrow the government” with weapons like pepper spray, a cane, a crutch, and a police shield. 

For Biden, however, potential constitutional breaches are a little less vague. Article IV, Section 4 states that the United States must protect each state against invasion. Further, Article 1, Section 8 directs Congress to defend the United States and support its overall welfare. 

Legal experts may be able to tie the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” into the argument, noting that many of Biden’s actions may be considered an abuse of power. On multiple occasions, he may have exceeded his constitutional authority, and recent investigations are making it harder to deny that he used his position as the Vice President for personal gain. His refusal to secure the border makes him complicit in violating national security, and his administration’s continued weaponization of the justice system could be considered obstruction of justice.  

The United States Supreme Court will hear the question of Trump’s eligibility on February 8, 2023. Liberal media is already warning that Colorado and Maine’s decision may be overturned and are preemptively blaming their potential loss on the “conservative justices” who will rule in Trump’s favor based on political loyalties and motivation. 

But if SCOTUS finds in favor of Trump, it’s proof that liberals, who only borrow the Constitution when it benefits them, are ill-prepared to take on conservatives, who live and breathe it.